HS/FA/14/00406
|
Variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of planning permission HS/FA/12/00952 - Minor amendment showing change of ground floor plan, additional & altered window positions & extended balcony. (Retrospective)
|
Rocklands Private Caravan Park, Rocklands Lane, Hastings, TN35 5DY
- Total Consulted: 27
- Comments Received: 413
- Objections: 410
- Supporting: 1
-
Collapse All|Expand All|Showing 1-10 of 413|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|Next
mrs mary Jones
Comment submitted date: Sun 18 May 2014
This building will be an eyesore in a previously unspoilt sssi. Had I been aware of the original planning application, I would have objected, but now object most strongly to any increase in scale of the building and its balcony. Planners also need to ensure that the site is relandscaped and the trees are replaced so that the view across ecclesbourne glen can once again be green.
Comment submitted date: Fri 13 Jun 2014
I have an additional objection to make as I have been notified that this building is actually 6.05 metres high, the approved height being 5.7 metres. This is an even high roof height for this monstrosity and will have even greater impacts on the hill and glen and be impossible to screen in any of our lifetimes. There are additional marked revisions on this plan that have not been mentioned in any documents, surely this cannot be allowed, these include changes to drainage, parking and access.
The landslip survey makes it clear that no changes to drainage can be made until a full survey of drainage has been made.
The water and fire authorities need to be consulted and work should be stopped until decisions have been made.
Mr Michael Madden
Comment submitted date: Mon 19 May 2014
Hello again,
This Michael Madden of no 6 High Wickham, Hastings, East Sussex,
TN35 5PB again. I neglected to send my full address with last two email - apologies.
Also my previous objection was not specific enough, so cancel the others and find here my list of objections please. I will get my wife to object separately.
I object
to this application on the following grounds:
1.
The balcony is very much larger than in the original plans.
2. The balcony
increases the footprint of the building and makes the building larger and even more visually intrusive in such a sensitive site.
3. The balcony brings the
building and its occupants even closer to the East Hill which is overlooked on all sides.
4. The balcony is intrusive and disturbs the tranquillity of the neighbouring areas.
5. During the approval process the High Weald AONB, History and Heritage consultees were unaware of this larger balcony when they considered the application. It is unlikely they would have approved the application if they had been aware of the size of the balcony.
6. The new
window overlooks the country park and is a further intrusion into the privacy of the area.
Regards
Michael Madden
Comment submitted date: Fri 13 Jun 2014
In addition to my previous objection I also wish that the following objection be recorded additionally:
It has been confirmed that the building is 6.2 meters high. The approved height was 5.7 meters. This is an increase in height of half a meter (roughly 10% increase). This is not within "reasonable tolerances" and further impacts on the hill and Glen, making screening even more difficult to achieve. I wish to add this reason to my previous objections.
I also wish to object that there are marked revisions on this plan that have not been mentioned in any documents. These include changes to drainage, parking and access. The changes will be approved should this application be approved. The water authority has not been consulted on drainage changes and the fire brigade have not been consulted on fire access. The landslip survey recommends that no changes to drainage be made until a full survey of drainage has been made.
Mr Chris Hurrell
Comment submitted date: Sat 17 May 2014
Dear Mr Crawford
This retrospective application addresses the following issues:
Change of Ground Floor Plan
Additional and altered windows
Extended Balcony
In the process of reviewing this retrospective application I believe I have come across several errors in the drawing (attached) supplied with the application:
This drawing marks the revisions made since the approved plans 11/396/1/A and 11/396/2 (see attached).
The following are correctly marked as revisions on the floor plans:
Ground Floor ? Window replacing the French Windows
First Floor - New Window overlooking Ecclesbourne Glen and Country Park
The following are correctly marked as revisions on the elevation drawings:
· New Windows installed to Overlook Rocklands Park
(would be more accurate to say to overlook Ecclesbourne Glen and Country Park)
· Window overlooking Hastings Country Park Removed
· Approved French Doors omitted and new windows installed
The following revisions appear not to be marked on the floor plans:
· Ground Floor - Window overlooking Hastings Country Park Removed
· First Floor ? The depth of balconies has been increased from 2.0 meters to 2.9 meters
The following revisions appear not to be shown on the floor plans:
· First Floor - The balcony now extends the full length of the South West elevation
The following revisions appear not to be marked on the elevation drawings:
South East Elevation - the balcony overhang is now greater to accommodate the increase in depth from 2.0 to 2.9 meters
North East Elevation - the balcony overhang is now greater to accommodate the increase in depth from 2.0 to 2.9 meters
North West Elevation - the balcony overhang is now greater to accommodate the increase in depth from 2.0 to 2.9 meters
South West elevation - the balcony overhang is now greater to accommodate the increase in depth from 2.0 to 2.9 meters
The following revisions appear not to be shown on the elevation drawings:
South West Elevation ? the balcony now runs the whole length of the SW elevation with 2 additional struts
In addition the drawing still shows trees and hedges shielding the building marked as existing trees and vegetation. This is misleading as all of these trees and shrubbery have been removed during the development.
These were removed in breach of condition 5 of hs/fa/12/00952.
I find this all very confusing and have brought these issues to you attention as I not certain whether this application can be considered valid when it has so many errors of detail.
I would be grateful if you could look into these issues and let me know:
· Let me know the points where you agree with my comments
· Let me know the points where you disagree with my comments
· Let me know what subsequent action will now be taken
· Given the number of flaws in this submitted application are you going to allow this application to stand and go through the approval process or are you going to disallow this one and request a new application?
· Should I object to this application or await a new corrected one?
Thanks in advance
Chris Hurrell
Comment submitted date: Mon 19 May 2014
The changes from approved plans are far from being minor as suggested in the title of this retrospective planning application.
I have based my objection on the physical reality of the building rather that on what is shown on the drawings that accompany this application.
This is because the drawings supplied to not reflect what has actually been built.
The depth of the balcony has been increased by some 45% from about 2 meters to 2.9 meters.
The length of the balcony has increased by about 5 meters on the East Hill side. This is not shown on the plans but has been built.
The length of the balcony has increased by nearly a meter on the southern side.
The area of the balcony has increased from about 32 square meters to about 61 square meters.
The total footprint of the building with balcony has increased from about 116 square meters to about 141 square meters.
There are now 3 balcony supports on the East Hill Side rather than 1. These are not shown on the plan but physically exist.
There is a new window on the south east elevation first floor this can be seen from all of Ecclesbourne Glen. It overlooks large areas of the country park.
I wish to object to this application on the following grounds:
The balcony is much larger than in the original approved plans.
The changes to the balcony increase the footprint of the building and makes it even more visually intrusive in such a sensitive site.
The increased depth , length and area of the balcony on the first floor means that it extends the building further towards the country park.
Seen from below on the lower slopes it is even more visually intrusive than the approved plans.
The larger balcony brings the balcony and its occupants closer to the country park which it overlooks on both sides
The larger balcony and its occupants further impedes on the tranquility and pleasure of users of the country park.
The approval process for this building involved consultations with specialist bodies to assess the impact of the building on such a sensitive area.
Those consulted include the High Weald AONB,Heritage statement and English Heritage.
It is unlikely they would have approved the application if they had been aware of the size of the balcony that has actually been built.
The 2 addition balcony supports are near the edge of the East Hill and are visually intrusive.
The new window overlooks the country park and is a further intrusion into the privacy and tranquility of the area.
In the process of reviewing this retrospective application I believe I have come across several errors in the drawing supplied with the application:
This drawing marks the revisions made since the approved plans 11/396/1/A and 11/396/2
The following are correctly marked as revisions on the floor plans:
Ground Floor ? Window replacing the French Windows
First Floor - New Window overlooking Ecclesbourne Glen and Country Park
The following are correctly marked as revisions on the elevation drawings:
· New Windows installed to Overlook Rocklands Park
(would be more accurate to say to overlook Ecclesbourne Glen and Country Park)
· Window overlooking Hastings Country Park Removed
· Approved French Doors omitted and new windows installed
The following revisions appear not to be marked on the floor plans:
· Ground Floor - Window overlooking Hastings Country Park Removed
· First Floor ? The depth of balconies has been increased from 2.0 meters to 2.9 meters
The following revisions appear not to be shown on the floor plans:
· First Floor - The balcony now extends the full length of the South West elevation
The following revisions appear not to be marked on the elevation drawings:
South East Elevation - the balcony overhang is now greater to accommodate the increase in depth from 2.0 to 2.9 meters
North East Elevation - the balcony overhang is now greater to accommodate the increase in depth from 2.0 to 2.9 meters
North West Elevation - the balcony overhang is now greater to accommodate the increase in depth from 2.0 to 2.9 meters
South West elevation - the balcony overhang is now greater to accommodate the increase in depth from 2.0 to 2.9 meters
The following revisions appear not to be shown on the elevation drawings:
South West Elevation ? the balcony now runs the whole length of the SW elevation with 2 additional struts
In addition the drawing still shows trees and hedges shielding the building marked as existing trees and vegetation. This is misleading as all of these trees and shrubbery have been removed during the development.
These were removed in breach of condition 5 of hs/fa/12/00952.
I find this all very confusing as I am not certain whether this application can be considered valid when it has so many errors of detail.
Given your officers have visited the site and seen that the balcony extends the full length of the east hill side how can plans which don't show this be allowed into the public domain?
I do not understand how anybody who has not visited the site can comment on the changes made given that they are not shown on the drawings.
I have brought these issues to the attention to Mr Crawford in a separate email on the 19/05/2014 who advised me to include the comments in the objection document.
Please acknowledge reception of this email and logging of my objection.
Christopher Hurrell
14 High Wickham
Hastings
East Sussex
TN35 5PB
Comment submitted date: Thu 29 May 2014
I note that the drawings supplied with this retro application have been changed. They are now a bit more accurate than the first set supplied. However I don't believe these drawings allow somebody who is not familiar with the development to understand the nature of the revisions from the original approved plans. I don't believe that the consultees such as English Nature , the AONB, Archaeology and Heritage have been given accurate and sufficient information to make an informed decision.
It is normal practice to clear mark revisions on drawings, this has not been done.
These new drawings have further confused what was already a confused process and these drawings are still unclear and still have the following errors:
The following revisions are not marked on the floor plans:
? Ground Floor ?. The SW wall of bedroom 2 is now in alignment with the SW wall of the Master bedroom , occupying 70% of the area marked as terrace on the approved plans. This increases the width of bedroom 2 by 1,65m and increases the footprint of the ground floor by 7.0 sq meters.
? First Floor ? The depth of balconies has been increased from 2.0 meters to
2.9 meters
The following revisions are not marked on the elevation drawings:
? South East Elevation - the balcony overhang is now greater to accommodate the increase in depth from 2.0 to 2.9 meters
? North East Elevation - the balcony overhang is now greater to accommodate the increase in depth from 2.0 to 2.9 meters
? North West Elevation - the balcony overhang is now greater to accommodate the increase in depth from 2.0 to 2.9 meters
? South West elevation - the balcony overhang is now greater to accommodate the increase in depth from 2.0 to 2.9 meters
The following revisions are not marked on the elevation drawings:
? South West Elevation ? the balcony now runs the whole length of the SW elevation with 2 additional struts
In addition the drawing still shows trees and hedges shielding the building marked as existing trees and vegetation. This is misleading as all of these trees and shrubbery have been removed during the development. These were removed in breach of condition 5 of hs/fa/12/00952.
These drawings still give the impression that screening is still in place although it was removed back in November 2013 a full 3 months before planning permission was given. Rocklands are serial offenders when it comes to breaching planning conditions and are putting the reputation of HBC planning at great risk.
In addition I am suspicious that the physical dimensions of the building may not be to the approved plans. Planning have refused to to carry out a site survey to ensure that dimensions are correct. This is very strange given the long history of Rocklands ignoring planning conditions. I request that planning carry out a full survey of the building as part of this planning application to ensure that the physical dimensions of this building have not changed.
Comment submitted date: Fri 13 Jun 2014
It has been confirmed that the building is 6.2 meters high. The approved height was 5.7 meters. This is an increase in height of half a meter (roughly 10% increase). This is not within "reasonable tolerances" and further impacts on the hill and Glen, making screening even more difficult to achieve. I wish to add this reason to my previous objections.
I also wish to object that there are marked revisions on this plan that have not been mentioned in any documents. These include changes to drainage, parking and access. The changes will be approved should this application be approved. The water authority has not been consulted on drainage changes and the fire brigade have not been consulted on fire access. The landslip survey recommends that no changes to drainage be made until a full survey of drainage has been made.
Comment submitted date: Fri 13 Jun 2014
It has been confirmed that the building is 6.05 meters high. The approved height was 5.7 meters. This is an increase in height of 35 centimeters This is not within "reasonable tolerances" and further impacts on the hill and Glen, making screening even more difficult to achieve. I wish to add this reason to my previous objections.
I also wish to object that there are marked revisions on this plan that have not been mentioned in any documents. These include changes to drainage, parking and access. The changes will be approved should this application be approved. The water authority has not been consulted on drainage changes and the fire brigade have not been consulted on fire access. The landslip survey recommends that no changes to drainage be made until a full survey of drainage has been made.
Mr Derek Brown
Comment submitted date: Sun 18 May 2014
I object to this application for the following reasons:
The amendments are not 'minor' alterations but present a large increase in the visual impact of this building in the sensitive location. The footprint of the building is vastly increased from the size of the original bungalow.
The balcony is very much larger than in the original plans. The balcony on the south west side was about 7.5 meters but now extends the full width to the rear of the building and is now about 11.5 meters (4 meters longer)
The balcony brings the building and its occupants even closer to the East Hill which is overlooked on all sides.
The balcony is intrusive and disturbs the tranquility of the neighboring areas.
During the approval process the AONB, History and Heritage consultees were unaware of this larger balcony when they considered the application. It is unlikely they would have approved the application if they had been aware of the size of the balcony. Will they be made aware of the changes?
The new first floor window in South/East elevation overlooks Ecclesbourne Glen though in the drawings it states it only overlooks Rocklands Caravan Park.
I urge you with to uphold the conditions of the approved plans and refuse these amendements.
Comment submitted date: Fri 13 Jun 2014
Further reason to object to this application ref: HS/FA/14/00406 It has been confirmed that the building is 6.05 meters high. The approved height was 5.7 meters. This is an increase in height of 35 centimeters . This is not within "reasonable tolerances" and further impacts on the hill and Glen, making screening even more difficult to achieve. I wish to add this reason to my previous objections.
miss Debra wiseman
Comment submitted date: Thu 22 May 2014
I am objecting to the building on the grounds that it is an eyesore. it is impossible to understand how planning permission was granted in the first instance. I believe the offending eyesore should be taken down.
Comment submitted date: Fri 13 Jun 2014
Further to my previous objection:- it has come to my notice that the new building is 35 cm taller than the approved height of 5.7 meters and this is not within reasonable tolerances. I wish to add this information to my previous OBJECTION.
Ms Jaki O'Dowd
Comment submitted date: Thu 22 May 2014
I wish to object to this retrospective application on the following grounds:
1. The balcony is much larger than in the original approved plans.
2. The changes to the balcony increases the footprint of the building, which makes it even more visually intrusive in such a sensitive site and significantly impacts on this AONB.
3. The increased depth, length and area of the balcony on the first floor means that the building extends further towards the Country Park Nature Reserve. Seen from the East Hill and below on the slope to Ecclesbourne Glen, it is considerably more intrusive than the approved plans.
4. The larger balcony brings the balcony and its occupants closer to the Country Park Nature Reserve, which it overlooks on both sides, simply exacerbating the dominance of this construction over an AONB. Thus impeding on the tranquility and pleasure of users of the Country Park Nature Reserve.
5. The approval process for this building involved consultations with specialist bodies, to assess the impact of the building on such a sensitive area. Those consulted include the High Weald AONB, Heritage statement and English Heritage. I consider it unlikely they would have approved the application, the size of the balcony had been shown on the original plans.
6. The 2 additional balcony supports are near the edge of the East Hill and are visually intrusive.
7. The larger balcony leaves little room for effective screening vegetation to be planted.
Comment submitted date: Tue 10 Jun 2014
Please see documents tab.
Comment submitted date: Fri 13 Jun 2014
I wish to add the following to my objections:
1. It has been brought to my attention that the building is 35cm higher than approved. This increases the visual impact on the High Weald AONB and will make adequate screen even more difficult.
2. There are also marked revisions pertaining to drainage, parking and access on this plan that have not been mentioned in any documents. These undocumented changes will be approved if this application is approved. I understand the water authority hasn't been consulted on the changes to drainage. The survey by Coffey recommends that that no changes to drainage be made until a full survey of drainage has been made. Neither has the fire brigade been consulted on fire access.
Mr David Woolf
Comment submitted date: Tue 20 May 2014
Please see documents tab
Comment submitted date: Fri 13 Jun 2014
Further to my written objection dated 19 May. I wish to make the following further objections:
It has been confirmed that the building is 6.2 meters high. The approved height was 5.7 meters. This is an increase in height of half a meter (roughly 10% increase). This is not within "reasonable tolerances" and further impacts on the hill and Glen, making screening even more difficult to achieve. I wish to add this reason to my previous objections.
I also wish to object that there are marked revisions on this plan that have not been mentioned in any documents. These include changes to drainage, parking and access. The changes will be approved should this application be approved. The water authority has not been consulted on drainage changes and the fire brigade have not been consulted on fire access. The landslip survey recommends that no changes to drainage be made until a full survey of drainage has been made.
Mr Andrew Blackman
Comment submitted date: Fri 23 May 2014
I write as Chairman of the Friends of Hastings Country Park, an organisation with around two hundred members which aims to help preserve this great asset on Hastings' doorstep. It is our firm belief that this new building should never have received planning permission in the first place, and that serious flaws in the planning process have been exposed by the tragedy of its construction. Enormous visual damage has already been caused to the Ecclesbourne Glen AONB. We strongly object to any variation to the plans which add any more balcony space, or any further windows. Any additional balcony area, particularly in the place proposed, will merely add to the already unacceptable intrusion on the East Hill. Any extra windows will add to the highly detrimental effect that the large areas of reflective surface on this building already present. If HBC planning department is to come out of this woeful series of events with any credibility intact, this application must be refused.
Comment submitted date: Fri 13 Jun 2014
Please see documents tab
Mr Simon Marshall
Comment submitted date: Tue 27 May 2014
I object to the increase in size to the balcony and to the addition of a new window. I do not understand how retrospective planning permission can be granted for a building that poses such a threat to the quality of the view and to the overall environment in the Country Park.
Comment submitted date: Fri 13 Jun 2014
I object to permission for a significant increas in height (35cm) to the new building as it will make screening the building more difficult. I also note that the water authorities were not consulted regarding the drainage system and the fire brigade's permission not sought concerning access.
Mr Martin Allen
Comment submitted date: Tue 27 May 2014
Walking through the Country Park this weekend I was nothing short of horrified at the ghastly structure protruding from the beautiful landscape. I went through emotions of horror, anger, sadness and confusion as to why this had ever been allowed, to now find the planning request is retrospective. I perceive that the owner of this property has no apparent care for their surroundings, the people who use the park, the natural habitats of the park or the safety and security of the park.
I was equally saddened to see the landslide that caused destruction of one of the most beautiful parts of the glen and to learn that this may have been caused by other negligent practices at Rocklands Caravan Park (a separate issue in itself, I know, but one that demonstrates a more general lack of care and I hope, if proven, that the owners are held to account).
I urge the council to reject the retrospective planning permission, order the building's immediate removal and use the legal fining powers available to you to send a clear message that this vandalism is not to be tolerated. The park is for the people of Hastings to enjoy and look after, not to decimate by one individual for their own selfish desire.
It beggars belief that this has been allowed to happen and it would be heinous slap in the face to the people of Hastings who recently voted some of you in to represent them and a complete abrogation of your duty were this monster be granted retrospective planning permission. For the sake of common sense and sanity, it has to go.
Comment submitted date: Fri 30 May 2014
An addendum to my previous objection:
1) I am concerned that the consultees, particularly High Weald AONB, Natural England and English Heritage have not been given full and proper consultation evidence. The basic plans supplied to them do not reflect the reality of what has been built (40% bigger than the two storey plans already agreed).
As far as we can tell, photographic evidence of the incongruence of the building erected so far, including its size and materials used and lack of screening that was on the plans supplied as consultation evidence, it is my view the planning consultation process has been flawed.
2) The materials used on the building are not in keeping with the surroundings.
3) There is concern about additional light pollution from an additional storey building.
Comment submitted date: Fri 13 Jun 2014
Additional objection:
The building is confirmed at 6.2 meters high, yet the approved height was 5.7 meters. This is an increase in height of half a metre which is roughly a 10% increase. This is not within "reasonable tolerances".
Showing 1-10 of 413|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|Next